Man ‘Reappears’ Through AI to Address His Killer in Court

Chris Pelkey, who was fatally shot in a road rage incident in Arizona three years ago, was virtually present in court through artificial intelligence to confront his killer during sentencing.

At the hearing for Gabriel Horcasitas—the man convicted of killing Pelkey at a red light—Pelkey’s family presented a posthumous victim impact statement generated using AI.

The technology replicated Pelkey’s voice and appearance using past audio recordings, photographs, and videos. The script for the video was written by his sister, Stacey Wales, who crafted the message based on what she believed her compassionate brother would have wanted to say.

“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” said the AI-rendered Pelkey in the courtroom. “In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do.”

Strange and Unusual: AI composite “version” of murder victim used in sentencing:

Chris Pelkey died in a road rage shooting in Arizona three years ago.

But with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer’s sentencing to deliver a victim’s… pic.twitter.com/6xl1HVqWMy

— Thomas (@Thomas984634784) May 8, 2025

The AI-generated video, played during the sentencing, depicted a digital version of Pelkey wearing a grey baseball cap. Judge Todd Lang, who oversaw the case, reacted favorably to the innovative use of AI in the courtroom. He subsequently sentenced Gabriel Horcasitas to 10 and a half years in prison on manslaughter charges.

“I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” Judge Lang said. “I feel that that was genuine.”

Paul Grimm, a former federal judge and current professor at Duke Law School, said he wasn’t surprised by the AI’s use in this instance, noting that Arizona courts already employ artificial intelligence in various capacities, including helping the public better understand Supreme Court decisions.

Since the AI-generated video was played only after the jury had rendered its verdict, during the sentencing phase, it was considered an appropriate use of the technology.

However, not everyone is fully on board. Derek Leben, a professor of business ethics at Carnegie Mellon University, raised concerns about the potential misuse of such tools in the future—particularly the difficulty of ensuring that posthumous AI messages truly represent the intentions and character of the deceased.

“If we have other people doing this moving forward, are we always going to get fidelity to what the person, the victim in this case, would’ve wanted?” Leben asked.

Wales, however, maintains that using AI was a respectful way to reflect her brother’s principles and beliefs.

“We approached this with ethics and morals because this is a powerful tool,” she said. “Just like a hammer can be used to break a window or rip down a wall, it can also be used as a tool to build a house—and that’s how we used this technology.”